GBC Blamed for Seven Months of Chaos During Work on Couple’s Home

Published on: 17 Jul, 2024
Updated on: 18 Jul, 2024

An example of the havoc – damage to the window sill bay window

By David Reading

A couple suffered seven months of chaos when contractors hired by Guildford Borough Council set to work on replacing the windows in their first floor flat.

Jane and Richard Hill claim there was a catalogue of errors that made life unbearable for them. They blame the “incompetence” of the council, its staff and the installers for the “total disruption” and serious damage at their first-floor flat in Pirbright during 2023. They are now seeking compensation from GBC.

According to the couple, poor communication on the council’s part exacerbated the problem, causing them stress and ill-health. They are in their sixties, and Mrs Hill told The Guildford Dragon NEWS that she suffers from a heart condition which, in extreme cold conditions, could put her into cardiac shock. The council was made aware of their poor health from the start and assured the Hills that they would take this into account.

The Hills own the flat in Rapleys Field under a leasehold arrangement with the council, which owns the land on which it stands. As the freeholder, the council is responsible for the exterior of the building – the roofing, brickwork, window frames, soffits and gutters. The leaseholder is responsible for the interior and the window panes.

The couple claim the problems were down to the installers’ “poor workmanship”, citing a long list of errors and damage caused during the installation work. There were so many errors, they claim, that eventually new contractors had to come in to remeasure and replace the windows throughout the flat.

Damage to plaster in the kitchen window aperture

For six weeks Mr and Mrs Hill were crammed into one room because the rest of the flat was uninhabitable. For months they were forced to endure a regular stream of workers invading their privacy, when the job should, they believe, have been over in a fraction of that time.

They claim that effective communication with the council became impossible, not least because staff members who had been dealing with their case left. Emails were sent to senior people, and replies received, but still the Hills did not get satisfaction.

Mr and Mrs Hill were told from the start that they must pay a share of the bill for the work. There are four flats in the block, the Hills’ quarter initially amounting to £5,680, plus a 10 per cent admin fee and an uplift into the rateable value of their property. They estimate that the total cost to them would be between £8,500 and £9,000. They are adamant that this bill must be waived by GBC and that they require compensation for the disruption, stress and ill-health they have suffered.

Problems were apparent at the beginning of the project in early 2023. As the contractors began work, they were told almost immediately by GBC to down tools because it was realised there hadn’t been an asbestos test (no disrupted particles were found). By then, the kitchen window and frame had been removed and demolished leaving a void. A new window was installed in haste but this was crooked, Mr Hill said.

He added: “The window was removed and reinstalled the following day, again at haste, leading to the frame being cracked as screwed in too tight. The contractors used 60mm white strip all around the window to hide the bad work.”

Mr and Mrs Hill said that during the entire project, just about everything the installers did led to problems. If it hadn’t been so serious it would have been a comedy of errors, they said.

It is claimed that the catalogue of damage included:

In the kitchen, plaster removed, brickwork and tiles broken and a damaged tap after it was used as a foot-hold.

In the back bedroom, a broken window sill, strips of wallpaper ripped and damage to brickwork.

On the landing, plaster removed and damage to brickwork.

In the sitting room, an internet cable broken, a broken window sill, damage to brickwork, a serious crack across the ceiling and a broken soffit outside.

Mrs Hill said: “Our anxiety levels rose each time we knew the workmen would be back as we anticipated that more damage and disruption would occur. More often than not our gut reaction was correct. To awaken day after day to see the devastation was soul destroying and very emotional.”

Mr and Mrs Hill also say there were contract issues with the initial contractors. They learned through a Freedom of Information request that a GBC letter sent to the company, dated January 19th 2023, advised the company to proceed despite there being no signed contract between GBC and the company. They have since been assured by the council that whilst the written contract had not been signed, the terms were agreed and both parties were acting in accordance with the draft contract to progress the works “expeditiously”.

It was when GBC replaced the contractors with another company that the true extent of the damage was revealed, Mr and Mrs Hill claim.

Damage to the soffit above the bay window

Asked for a response, the first firm of contractors told The Dragon that in normal circumstances their installers, all skilled and experienced workers, would not leave properties the way Mr and Mrs Hill are saying. However, they say they were taken off the job before they could complete due to “internal wranglings” within GBC. The statement said: “Any alleged inconvenience and disruption caused to the Hills is firmly at the door of Guildford BC and others and certainly not our company.”

We have agreed not to publish the company’s name while GBC investigates the Hills’ complaints.

In September 2023, redecoration of the Hills’ sitting room by “way of an apology” began. The second firm of contractors was engaged to do this. It was discovered that during the previous work, a crack had appeared across the sitting room ceiling from the bay window to the far wall.

The ordeal was far from over. Although the new company allowed four days for the redecoration, it went on for two weeks. “It was all we could do to stop them painting a newly plastered ceiling. They wanted to paint the ceiling the day after it had been plastered,” said Mrs Hill. The crack was repaired but returned in November, the couple said.

Pedro Wrobel, GBC CEO

Thankfully the damage has finally been rectified. But after many months, Mr and Mrs Hill have not received any statement from GBC that has satisfied them. They are hoping to take the matter right to the top, with a meeting with GBC’s new CEO, Pedro Wrobel.

In addition to their request for compensation, they have another key question: Following an FOI response from GBC’s Information Governance Office, they discovered that the actual cost of the windows as installed by the original company totalled £4,300. Why, they ask, were they presented with a figure of £5,680?

Mrs Hill has said in an email to GBC: “Foolishly we placed our trust in you to do the right thing. How wrong we were.”

GBC said in a statement to The Dragon: “We are aware of these complaints and they are currently being investigated. We do not comment on individual cases.”